Peaceworks

Peaceworks
was founded in 1982 as a Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign and we remain deeply
concerned about the threat these weapons pose to the survival of humanity and
the biosphere as a whole. We support any legitimate effort to advance the
mutual, verifiable elimination of these horrific devices.

We,
of course, do not see the use of military force as an appropriate method of
addressing nuclear proliferation. To even threaten the use of such force, as
Israel and the United States have done repeatedly over the years, creates the
incentive to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities as a deterrent.

While the Obama-Kerry effort to negotiate with
Iran via the P5+1 framework is preferable to the obstructionist position of
most Congressional Republicans and Netanyahu, there is still a tremendous
amount of hypocrisy in the approach the President has embraced.

To
begin with, the P5, that is the U.S., UK, France, Russia and China are all
nuclear-armed states. So is Israel. All the P5 members are signatories to the
1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Most people are aware that this
treaty requires non-nuclear weapons states to refrain from the pursuit of
n-weapons, and obligates them to open their nuclear facilities to international
inspection.

What
many do not realize is that Article VI of the NPT commits the U.S. and the
other nuclear weapons states to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under
strict and effective international control.”

This
agreement was signed in 1968 and went into effect in 1970. 45 years later, the
Pentagon still has an arsenal of many thousands of warheads, and approximately
$60 billion of our tax dollars are being spent each year to maintain and
upgrade this arsenal and its delivery systems.

In
fact, maintaining nuclear dominance in perpetuity is the official strategic
doctrine of our nation. Toward this end, the U.S. is investing hundreds of
billions in constructing new nuclear weapons facilities around the country and
has absolutely no intention of following either the letter or the spirit of the
NPT, which, as a ratified treaty, is supposed to be the highest law of the
land.

Israel does not publicly acknowledge the
existence of its nuclear weapons. It is generally understood, however, that
Israel is the only country in the Middle East with such weapons and is believed
to have approximately 200 warheads. Israel has refused to sign the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran and virtually all other states in the
Middle East are signatories.

As
long as the U.S. and the other P5 nations refuse to move forward on their
commitment to mutually eliminate their nuclear arsenals, they have very little
credibility arguing that other nations should not seek nuclear arms. This “do
as I say, not as I do” approach is worse than patronizing. Our government is
essential acting as a bully, insisting that others follow their orders,
imposing harsh economic sanctions and threatening military action if their
demands are not met.

The
other hypocrisy in the U.S. approach to Iran involves our government’s failure
to acknowledge the inherent connection between civilian nuclear power and
nuclear weapons. To build a significant nuclear fission energy program requires
the means for enrichment of uranium. And, as the fissile isotope of uranium is
relatively rare, for fission power to be more than a short term undertaking
requires the separation of plutonium from spent fuel.

Enrichment
capabilities and plutonium separation through reprocessing are necessary
ingredients for both a full-blown civilian nuclear energy program and a nuclear
weapons program. There is no secret to the bomb, only limited access to
“special nuclear materials,” that is highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

Peaceworks
opposes the use of nuclear fission for energy, recognizing that it is too
dangerous, too dirty, too slow and far too expensive to be a viable source of
energy to address the climate crisis. Our government, on the other hand,
supports the expansion of nuclear power and maintains the fiction that this can
be done without spreading nuclear weapons capabilities. In fact, the
infrastructure and technical knowhow for a civilian nuclear energy program is
exactly what is needed for any nation that wishes to “go nuclear” on the
weapons side.

Only
if we move beyond nuclear power, at home and abroad, can we really root out
nuclear weapons proliferation. If the world was to eschew the nuclear option
for energy, then any effort to build enrichment or reprocessing facilities
would be unambiguously directed toward weapons production and immediate action
could be taken.

With
these concerns stated, in the short run, it is clearly preferable to pursue
negotiations rather than to harken to the neo-cons’ drumbeat for war. Thus, we
must offer qualified support to the negotiations process. If we are to have any
hope for a peaceful, nuclear-free future, however, we must focus on nuclear
weapons in general, rather than seeing Iran as the problem.

We
should pursue a Nuclear-Free Middle East as part of a broader settlement of
regional conflicts, but we should not stop there. Ultimately, we need to work
for a world free of the scourge of nuclear weapons. And, in tandem with this,
we need a world that gets serious about addressing the climate crisis by moving
rapidly to improve energy efficiency and expand the use of safe, clean renewable
energy options.

If you agree that these are policies worthy of
pursuing, we need your vocal and visible support to make them a reality. Far
too many of us have abdicated an active role in the process of setting policy
and priorities. If, on the other hand, the people find our voice and lead,
perhaps, in time, the so-called “leaders” will follow.

Those of you on our Peaceworks mailing list have likely already received our winter 2015 newsletter in the mail. Those who haven't seen it yet can find it as as PDF if you CLICK HERE.You will find news of our "Another Missourian for Climate Action" campaign, our take on the new war on the so-called Islamic State, info on upcoming classes, films, book discussion, Earth Day 2015 and more.

confirmed dead in
Syria, President Obama sent a request to Congress to authorize the use of force
against the so-called Islamic State (IS), something that was actually initiated
more than six months ago, without specific authorization.

The
tragedies unfolding throughout the Middle East at the moment are largely the
direct result of past U.S. interventions and aggression, including the illegal
2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now, Congress seems nearly certain to authorize
further U.S. war-making in the region, for at least the next three years,
likely longer, as there seems to be no end to this so-called Long War.

Peaceworks
stands unequivocally opposed to attempts to bomb the region into peace or to
train and arm proxy armies. As has been the case with every American military
intervention in the region, Obama’s war on IS will undoubtedly bring more death
and destruction. The likely outcome will be more, not fewer, enemies and
greater regional instability. It will be very costly in every sense of the
word.

We
are, of course, moved by tragic loss of life, including the death of Mueller
and the immolation of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh.
We also recognize that those who seek to expand and extend the seemingly
perpetual war, are taking advantage of this, playing on our compassionate,
caring impulses.

While
Peaceworks condemns, without any qualification, the brutality of groups like IS,
we oppose the new war on IS. Further, we recognize that the current situation must
be understood in context.

Part
of this is recognizing the responsibility the U.S. holds for the very existence
of the IS. When the U.S. launched its Iraq invasion there was no Al Qaeda in
Iraq (the group that has since morphed into IS). The U.S. invasion led directly
to the very tragic loss of many hundreds of thousands of lives, the dislocation
of 5 million people from their homes and, in the process, created a climate that
allowed an extremist group like IS to rally a portion of the population to
their banner.

Rarely
do American media focus on the impact of the U.S. invasion and the subsequent
counter-insurgency war on individual Iraqis or families. There are innumerable
dead Iraqis every bit as innocent, idealistic and even photogenic as Ms.
Mueller. Never seeing their faces; never hearing their stories; we are rarely
moved in the fashion that an event like Mueller’s death—given the maximum media
attention it’s received—has moved American public opinion.

Some
seek to use the deaths of American captives, like Kayla Mueller, or the
beheaded western journalists to rally support of an expanded war, or, in some
cases, for encouraging fear and loathing of Muslims in general. They are
clearly opportunists. Most others are just caught up in the emotional frenzy.
Yet they are being played by those who prefer war to peace, larger military
budgets to a Peace Economy, and empire over a cooperative world order.

While
these atrocities, which have stoked many Americans’ fears, are being used to
justify U.S. attacks in Iraq and Syria, the states of Libya and Yemen—both
sites of U.S. military intervention—have been disintegrating. And, while feudal
Saudi Arabia is embroiled in succession, Lebanon and Jordan totter on the
brink, and Europe is reeling from Islamist militant attacks, anti-Muslim
demonstrations and more.

Does
any sane observer really believe that a new Congressional resolution
authorizing continued or expanded war will improve upon this situation? Really?